Lieberman and Gephardt are the only two candidates who wont ensure more democratic losses in the congress, much less having a shot in the general. Kerry and Graham have tied themselves to the sinking stone that is Dean with no going back, and Edwards is a lightweight.

Kerry and Dean’s democratic numbers keep going up. Thats not necessarilly a good thing. Not only would either of these guys go down in flames, they would likely carry the party with them. If the Dems run a moderate that can pass the ‘soft on national defense’ test (Lieberman) at the very least they would have a great shot at winning back the house, even if their guy got nipped by Bush. If one of these bonehead doves runs, Bush will win 40+ states and probably carry a bunch of new house and senate seats on his coattails. Dean and Kerry have already buried themselves under the not serious about national security grave.

Kerry and Dean’s democratic numbers keep going up. Thats not necessarilly a good thing
************************************************************
How are increasing popularity numbers ever NOT a good thing? Just because you think they will lose does not mean this is not a positive event for both candidates….

Because its a simple matter to win the primary and lose the general election. The democratic nominee is automatically going to get the left wing vote in this election (Nader is not going to be able to spoil this time, the far left wing is out to get Bush and will unite to back anyone that can do it), so it doesnt help to garner these votes at this point at the expense of the center. Look at how Clinton and Bush won, by courting centrists and the other party, not by placating their base. The higher the number of liberals coming out in support of Dean and Kerry, the more centrists run screaming for the hills. Quite simply, you cant win this election without your national security credentials, and having Norm Chomski and his ilk as your most visible supporters dooms you to McGovern hell. The rational wing of the DNC (whats left of it) knows this and will throw any monkeywrench in the works that it can to keep that from happening. Hence Dean nor Kerry will win the primary. The one caveat being my personal conspiracy theory that holds that the rational wing of the DNC is in the Clintons’ pockets and wants to see the 04 candidate get squashed so Hillary can raise the party from the dead in 08. Tangled webs indeed.

I am simply saying it is better to be on the increasing side of things…

You are extending this story and stretching it all the way to November 2004…. No one knows Mark…We are all guessing.. My simple,humble, measly point is that it is better to have increasing popularity than decreasing or fluctuating….

No, all things being equal you are right. But the democrats in general and the candidates in specific would be well served to take the long view. From my standpoint, it would be bad for the entire country if the democratic nominee cant compete effectively in the general.

Those who campaign the best aren’t necessarily the best candidates for the presidency. One firebrand in a sea of beige paint may get the juices flowing, but if that candidate is seen as too far off the scale by non-believers, you’ll have a Mondale/Dukakis/McGovern-type of defeat. I think we can rule out Kucinich, Moseley Braun, Graham, Sharpton and Edwards, as they just haven’t demonstrated that they have legs or any moderate appeal.

So that leaves Dean, Gephardt, Kerry and Lieberman. I don’t know that Gephardt has that much national appeal. Strong union base, but a medical plan that would bankrupt us before he was out of office. I think it’s just Dick’s turn on the swing and the party faithful are going to let him go, but they’re not necessarily going to give him a push.

Of Kerry, Dean and Lieberman, Lieberman is probably the most moderate, but he’s seen as damaged goods, Hubert Humphrey-style. Plus if you put him up against Dean, they’re going to be putting a mirror under his nose to see if he’s still breathing.

Does it come down to Kerry and Dean? We’re 16 months out, but if I had to choose, Kerry’s still a little more palatible to the DNC plank builders.

dont look at anything.. I am that ex clinton voter and W has done a pretty good job under some very difficult circumstances,,,, We are not going back until the democrats provide a candidate with credibility and maturity. Unless something dramatic happens, Bush wins by 8-10% points.

When I see a candidate that stands up and says I respect the job that George Bush has done under the most difficult of circumsatnces but I think I can do it better, I might consider that person. This trash talk dont work anymore.

Kerry served on a gunboat in the Mekong Delta. He was highly decorated if I recall. No question the man was a war hero. Politically it’s helpful but not decisive. If he looks soft on national defense and fighting terrorism (he’s already produced too many quotes suggesting he is) he will go down in flames. Senator Max Cleeland was an incumbant, a war hero, and had lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam but he went down last election because he couldnt convince voters he was serious enough on security. Dems are missing the boat on this thing and it is going to eat them alive next year.

Bush is going to win.
If you dont know that already you are dumber than dirt. Anyone see him at the WTC with the firefighters? All this election talk is a waste of pixels and taxpayer money. I know we have to have it.. but lets jsut keep it cheap because we all know who is going to win.
If this election was vegas would you bet any money on any of these dems?

The Democratic leadership in Congress and the Labor majority in the House of Commons are about to do something never before done in history: Introduce a joint resolution on Iraq which repudiates Bush and Blair and at the same time restores Saddam Hussein to the presidency of Iraq.

This is a draft of the resolution:

Whereas, the Congress of the United States and the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, in solemn session have pondered the war against Iraq President Saddam Hussein and

Recalling, that the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom were concerned at the threat of Iraq’s noncompliance with Security Council resolutions and known proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security, and

Deploring the fact that Iraq at the time had not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by U.N. resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material, and

Recalling, that the Security Council was told that weapons of mass destruction would be found after the defeat of Saddam Hussein, and

Recognizing that after months of search by coalition forces no such weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical, or nuclear have been found anywhere in occupied Iraq despite promises and assurances from the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom that such weapons would be found, and

Determined that action should be taken to rectify the injustice done to Saddam Hussein and the people of Iraq, the legislatures of the United States and the United Kingdom recommend:

First, immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from the Republic of Iraq;

Second, reelection by acclamation of Saddam Hussein to his lawful post as President of the Republic of Iraq;

Third, immediate restitution of all currencies stolen from the treasury of Iraq;

Fourth, freeing of all Iraqi officials now in custody and restoring them to their previous positions;

Fifth, reconstruction of all prisons which were illegally destroyed by coalition forces aided by Iraqi criminals;

Sixth, elimination of special privileges for the Kurdish and Shiite populations who threaten the unity of the Republic of Iraq.

Seventh, written apologies to be prepared with the advice and consent of appropriate committees of Congress and House of Commons are to be presented in person by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to President Saddam Hussein after his ticker tape parade up Broadway and receiving the keys to New York City;

Eighth, payment of $1 million for the death of each son of President Saddam; and

Ninth, recommendations are to be made by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to the Nobel Prize award officials that they should bestow upon President Saddam Hussein the Nobel Peace Prize for 2004.

A near-majority of Democrats now want New York Sen. Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2004, a Quinnipiac University survey released Thursday shows - registering the highest level of support ever for the former first lady’s candidacy.

Forty-eight percent of registered Democrats now back Mrs. Clinton, more than all the other Democratic candidates combined.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., is the next most popular Democrat, but he garners just 11 percent in the Quinnipiac poll. Trailing him is Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., tied with a meager 7 percent each.

In a direct match-up with President Bush, the Quinnipiac survey shows Mrs. Clinton making substantial gains. She now trails Bush by just seven points - 50 percent to 43 percent - among registered voters of both parties.

That’s the first time in any survey that a Democrat has been able to deny Bush a majority, making Clinton her party’s best hope to recapture the White House next year.

The top Democrat has repeatedly denied that she has any “intention” of running in 2004, but she recently told a BBC interviewer who asked about her presidential plans for next year, “You never know what might happen.”

If the election were held today, Bush would beat Lieberman by 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent, Kerry by 11 points, 51 percent to 40 percent, Gephardt by 9 points, 51 percent to 42 percent, and Dean by 16 points, 53 percent to 37 percent.

The Quinnipiac University survey was taken July 17-22, polling 1,055 registered voters nationwide, with a margin of error of +/- 3 percent. The survey includes 372 Democrats, with a margin of error of +/- 5.1 percent.

Thursday, July 24, 2003
Students Admit Being Cowed by Intolerant Leftist Professors

College professors are farther to the left than their students and routinely state their political opinions in class, a survey of Capitol Hill interns indicates.

Even worse, the profs’ intolerance for diversity of thought leads many students to keep quiet when they hold a different viewpoint, according to the report, released today by Independent Women’s Forum.

The survey shows a growing divide between political viewpoints held by students and faculty members. (Of course. It’s easy to be an armchair socialist when you’re on the taxpayers’ and students’ dole and have only to teach a few classes a week.)

Nearly three-quarters, 74 percent, of students surveyed said their professors “always,” “frequently” or “sometimes” directly stated their political views while teaching.

The survey also showed that 51 percent of those students described their professors as “liberal,” 28 percent said they were conservative, and 21 percent reported their teachers were independent. More than half the students said the eggheads were farther to the left than they themselves were.

All and all, Kerry stands an excellent chance of winning the democratic ticket for 2004. He is already taking a swift lead in important states like Iowa. Kerry has great ideas and is a good politician. Check out his website johnkerry.com. John is proenvironment, pro-average american and most importantly anti-bush. Let’s face it Bush didn’t win the popular vote and he won’t win the next election either.People are sick of Bush and his failures and they a leader who can make a real difference. I believe Kerry can make that difference and help to undo some of the damage Bush has done; not only to the environment, but to the economy and moral of the American people. As a young person (25) I would like to see presidents like Kerry lead us into the next century. I know who me and many fellow Americans are pulling for. Go John!

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.